Summary
The Court upheld recognition of a new Panchayat Samiti party leader chosen by three of the party’s four elected members. The district political-party president had chaired the meeting, but the elected group itself made the decision through the same process used to select the appellant. Rules drafted by the appellant claiming a five-year tenure could not override the founding resolution permitting leadership change. A minority leader could not impose herself on the majority. Her appeal against the Collector’s recognition order was dismissed without costs.
Issues
- Whether a group leader could resist replacement by the elected majority on the strength of self-drafted rules claiming a five-year tenure.
- Whether the district political-party president’s chairing of the meeting amounted to imposition of a leader by an outsider.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(l), Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986The Panchayat Samiti party consisted of the elected members belonging to the political party, aghadi or front; the leadership decision here was taken by that group. (¶¶ 9, 10, 23)
- Rule 3(1) and (4), Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987The information and internal rules furnished to the Collector did not acquire the status of statutory rules or override the founding resolution authorising a change of leader. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20)
Held
- The resolution under which the appellant became group leader also contemplated a leadership change and authorised the district president to take the necessary steps. Her selectively drafted internal rules could not negate that part of the resolution or create an overriding five-year entitlement. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- A group leader must ordinarily be replaced through the same democratic process by which the group selected the leader, rather than imposed by an outside political party. Here the district president merely chaired the meetings; the elected members themselves selected the appellant initially and the replacement later. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- Having lost the support of three of the four members, the appellant could not compel the majority to retain her leadership. The anti-defection scheme’s purpose did not justify interpreting it to allow a minority member to impose leadership on the majority. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27)
- There was no reason to interfere with the High Court’s dismissal of the challenge to recognition of the new group leader. The appeal was dismissed without costs. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; Collector’s recognition of the replacement group leader sustained.